Nehalem quad core 2.93ghz vs. Nehalem dual quad core 2.26ghz

[Rreale]

First post here! I posted something similar to this as a reply to a previous thread, but I haven't really found an answer and figured it would be better to have more people see this as a new thread. The studio I work at is about to upgrade our PCI HD3 PPC G5 to either a Mac Pro Nehalem quad core 2.93ghz or a 8 core 2.26ghz with new PCIe HD3 Accel cards. We can't seem to get an answer for which is better to go with. We don't really run any sample based synths with huge libraries or any virtual synths at all...the main concern is for running multiple instances of AutoTune and other cpu intensive RTAS plug-ins when TDM gets full. Is there any advantage of having the slower clock speed with the 8 core vs. the faster clock speed quad core? Also debating if we really need 32 gb of ram vs. 16 if we go with the 8 core? Any help is appreciated...we just got the new PCIe cards today and are just waiting to decide on the computer. Great community by the way, have learned so much just from browsing.

[lowkey]

The Mac Pros should be getting an update real soon. So depending on how urgent you need a new computer you could wait and get something better than both of them.

[frenkonio]

Originally Posted by lowkey

The Mac Pros should be getting an update real soon. So depending on how urgent you need a new computer you could wait and get something better than both of them.

Yes, Lowkey is right. I'm in the same situation... I bought a new, fresh HD2 Accell Pci-E and I'm waiting for new Mac Pro in order to have a better price for the current 8core. Nobody knows if they will be out in May or June but, in my case, I can wait. I don't wanna be wasted by prices going down only because I didn't wanna wait 2 months

[Firechild]

Originally Posted by lowkey

The Mac Pros should be getting an update real soon. So depending on how urgent you need a new computer you could wait and get something better than both of them.

LOL and so are the ancient HD3 hardware...4 years old or even more?

[Rreale]

Thanks for the replies...we definitely need to get the computer soon, any thoughts on how much of a price break the current Mac Pros would get when the new ones come out? Trying to figure out if it is worth it to wait...

[dasnub]

I'd recommend the 8 core for the simple fact that it's RAM capacity is so much greater than the quad core. You can put 8 sticks in vs. 4. I've got an 8 core 2.8 from 2008, and my CPU usage RARELY goes past 20%. Seriously. Mac Pros are overkill for audio at this point, so I wouldn't worry about waiting for the latest and greatest. In fact, if you can find the 2008 for around $2k new on eBay like I did last month, you'll be saving yourself a ton of cash and it really won't hurt you at all in the audio department. The only advantage I've really seen in the 2009 Nehalem Mac Pros are reduced latency, but to me, it does not justify the price.

[jcschild]

Originally Posted by Rreale

First post here! I posted something similar to this as a reply to a previous thread, but I haven't really found an answer and figured it would be better to have more people see this as a new thread. The studio I work at is about to upgrade our PCI HD3 PPC G5 to either a Mac Pro Nehalem quad core 2.93ghz or a 8 core 2.26ghz with new PCIe HD3 Accel cards. We can't seem to get an answer for which is better to go with. We don't really run any sample based synths with huge libraries or any virtual synths at all...the main concern is for running multiple instances of AutoTune and other cpu intensive RTAS plug-ins when TDM gets full. Is there any advantage of having the slower clock speed with the 8 core vs. the faster clock speed quad core? Also debating if we really need 32 gb of ram vs. 16 if we go with the 8 core? Any help is appreciated...we just got the new PCIe cards today and are just waiting to decide on the computer. Great community by the way, have learned so much just from browsing.

2 things
1) Dual is not double the power. in fact about 35% gain over the same speed single.

so 2.26 dual puts you on par with about a 3GHz single. and thats assuming that its good with multi threading...
OSX is struggling (and failing) to multi-tread correctly.
so a single faster quad would most likely be better than a slow dual.

2) the correct ram for a single is 6/12/24 GB
the correct ram for dual (needs sets of 6) is 12 or 24
given you are not doing much in the way of samples anything past 6 gig is probably not going to be used and would be a waste on the single
and 12 on the dual...

Scott
ADK